>> WALK THIS WAY!
>> WALK THIS WAY.
>> EVERYBODY IN LINE PLEASE.
>> I AM AT THE THREE.
YEAH.
>> ANYONE IN THE OFFICE?
>> YOU CAN GIVE ME YOUR KEYS.
SERIOUSLY.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE THEN THREDURERESRENIS
MB CY I OFOFINERTHIFLY ET MITHY POTENTIALLY
TENS OF MILLIONS OF AMERICANS.
I WELCOME THE COURTS QUESTIONS.
JUTICE THOMAS: ID IMPLEMENT THE DISQUALIFICATION
IN SECTION T T-EHAWE IR STATE IN
ENFORCING SECTION
THREE UNLESS CONGRESS WAS TO
ENAC>> WHAT IF SOMEONE CAME
IOT.DOES THE SECRETARY OF STATE HAVE
THE AUTHORITY IN THAT SITUATIORY NIIC
T SES.E IF WAIVER OBTAIN
A WAIVER FROM CONGRESS.
S: LTLUIMR. MITCHELL: CORRECT.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: E
CTN BY
REQUIRING A CANDIDATE NGID TOFFICE
IN ILLINOIS, THE
SECRETARY OF STATE CANNOT SAYHETHT
IF N OS IS THREE
ON PHASEIS YOU ADMITTED THAT THE CONCEPT
AENHE EPIK LEGISLATION TO
PERMIT THE STATE TO DISQUALIFY
AND INSURRECTIONIST.
UNDER SECTION THREE.
TI STEE MOWCE A. MITCHELL: OF COURSE,
IT IS RARE AND THIS ISMA I DON'T
DISAGREE BUT NOT WITH RESPECTTO REDEFINE
THE CONCEPT OF SELF EXECUTIOICG LASFFTEJUSTIMOFTESF
1870.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR:TH
R ININSU E THOSE ARE ALL THREE DIFFERENT
QUESTIONS IN MY MIND.
MR. S NORITHE THAT SUCH A SUIT
WOULD IT
ENACTED THE ENFORCEMENT ACT OF
1870 AND ESTABLISHED --
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: IF I MAY
INTERRUPT,LY C F WAY CONGRESSSEOKE
Y CACO EXPRESS -- THERE DID NOT
NEED TO RE AND THERE
WERE NO SUBSEQUENT CONGRESSIONAL
ENACTMENT, BUT DO YOU THEN TY-ETHOR
HDE IHI JUDGE
BY ANYONE WHO WASN'T
INSURRECTIONIST S WHY DO YOU NEED
THESE IN --
INCONSEQUENTIAL.
MR. MITCHELL:
D WHY AREN'T SE
ENFORCING SECTION THREE
UNLESS CONGRESS WAS TO GIVE THEM
THATLIFI --
BECAUSE CONGRESS WOULD BE ADDING
A QUALIF SICENENTA MPORTANT
CAVEAT THAT THERE HAS BE
PERMISSIBLE BECAUSE SECTION
THREE REFERS TO THE HOLDING OF
ARYDD DISQUALIFICATION AT AN
EARLIER POINT IN
RT DGI THE --.
THAT IS
THEN CREATES ANO AEX
TREATIES -- THE ISSUE IS WHETHER
IT HASD CA - T ECTI STATES, PERHAPS
ALL OTHER STATES.
COULD ITMRNO TENGAGE IN INCITEMENT
OR MAKE SOME OTHERY IM ATS COULD REACH
AN OPPOSITE CONCLUSIONS EPHAPE COULD
THEY
SUPPORT A STRUCTURAL ARGUMENT
OT USOF TO REVERSE
THE COLORADO SUPREME COURT
ALTHOUGH WE DON'T THINK IT IS
NECESSARY BECAUSE THE LAW IS
ON OUR SIDE. >> YOU K
E CITIZEN.
ARE YOUR ARGUMENTS LIMITED TO
OR ALTERING THE
EXTENT QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE
PRESIDENT AND TH PRESIDENT RUNS FOR
A THIRD TERM.
A STATE CANNOT DISQUALIFY HIM
FROM ARI YOU
CANNOT APPEAR ON OUR BELL IF YOU
HAVE ALREADY SERVED THROUGH TERMS.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR:LL AT THE
TIME OF THE ELECTION WHAT HE
TERMSYOOR ILIMITEOPROL REDEEE WHE
TIME OF THE ELECTION OR
AT OF CLARIFICATION.
WHEN YOU SAY TERM LIMITS YOU
MEAN OUR DECISION AND THE TERM
LIMITS VERSUS THORTON.
WITH THE FACT THAT THECH E IN BECAUSE
SOME ARE CATEGORICAL. >>TEGORICAL?
N
OTINHEAT DOES
P HE SECTION THREE IS
ACCELERATING THE DEADLINE THE
CONSTITUTION PROVIDES FOR >> THAT
IS BY VIRTUE OF THE HOLD. MR. MITCHELL: CORRECT.
>> T W POINT?
TORY, WHY DOES THE SUM
TOTAL OF WAYSHAD OFFICE PUTTING ASIDE
THE OFFICER ARGUMENT, WHAT IS THE
UR.NATAPROVISION --
HEALWOH TE OTTHING BY A SIMPLE MAJORITY.
IC ONLI F DTEY ISS
THE 14TH AMENDMENT.
WE ACKNOWLEDGE THE THE
DISQUALIFICATION BY A TWO THIRDS
VOTE TO A PARDONUENTOMORENHE REASONS
THE
DISQUALIFICATION SHOULD BE
LIFTED OR COURT
ACCEPTS THE GRIFFIN'S CASE THAT
WOULD BE THE RIDGING THAT WE
HAVE. TH>> ISN'T THAT WHAT YOU ARE YOU WOULD
HAVE THE EXACT SAME
ACTOR AND SAY THE AON PTIO THAN TWO
THIRDS.
IT CAN DO THAT BY A
IF THE HOLDING OF GRIFFIN'S CASE IS
CORRECT. >>AV HALF
PLUS ONE SAYIN F WE WERE RELYING ON
PREEMPTION DOCUMENTS AS WELLCASE IS
ALSOOFOF WHAT THE
MEANING OR UNDERSTANDINGGE PSE KATH
UNDERCUT WHY GRIP A BECAUSE YOU ARE MAKING
A CONTEXTUAL LIST ARGUMENT.
PA IRSEBOG DE A
PERSON THAT PREVIOUSLY TOOK A
PRESIDENTIAL OATH IS NOT SUBJECT
TO DISQUALIFICATION?
MR. MITCHELL: WE ARE ARGUING
BOTH.
THERE IS A FOCUS
ON THE SECOND ANE FIRST.
JUSTICE JACKSON: WHY?
OUENT IS USED IN A WAY
THAT EXCLUDES --
JUSTICE JACKSON:TH
PRESIDENT
AND ALL OTHERS CIVIL OR MILITARY
OFFICES.
T NOT APPEAR
SPECIFICALLY ON THAT LIST.
I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND ARESORE>>EE
PIG OFFICE OR SMUGGLED ITTHAT IS WHY
WE ARE MAKINGIS SAYS YOU DID NOT
MAKE ATII D YOU DO NOT AFFIRMATIVELY
ARGUE THAT POINT I THINK IS WHAT
YO OOU HE
CONSTITUTION INCLUDING THE
IMPEACHM I THOUGHT THE POINT WAS THAT
SECTION THREE WAS EXPLAIN WHY CERTAIN
OFFICES PST STATES
THAT COULD APPLY AT A LOT HINGES
ON THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COME IN YOURWOXTISTHOSE
TWO TERMS SO CLOSELY
RELATED WOULD CARRY SUCHHAENEICES
OOLD
AN OFFICE UNDER THE UNITED STATES.
THAT PROVISIONT INRY
DISCUSSION THAT ILLUMINATES WHY
THAT DISTINCTION WTED
TOE WANTED TO GO
FURTHER AND BANNED TI HAVE ONE TECHNICAL
QUESTION.
THE STATUTE OF R SAID IN
1948. I TRIED TO FIND IT.
OR CODE. I THINK A LOT OF THINGS GOT
E JUSTICE
THOMAS, ANY FURTHER? >> IS THERE ANYAT NOT THAT I AM
AWARE. >> THANK YOU.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR:ECY PRINCIPAL
ARGUMENT IS THAT THE PRESIDENT IS NOT AN OFFICER OF THE UNITED
STATESOR IETHAT HE IS EXCLUDED IS
THE STRONGER OF THEGERRYMANDERED DESIGNING
IT TO BENEFIT YOUR CLIENT.
MR. MITCHELL: INDPE HAS
TAKEN AN OATH TO SUPPORT THE
CONSTITULLN ID BIDEN -- HE TOOK AN
OATH AS MEMBERETS ULD BE ENFORCED
BY STATES AGAINST THE PRESIDENT?
>> THAT WOULD EXTEND EVERY
PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: EXACTLY.
THANK YOU. JUSTICE KAGAN: WHN ORY WHO HAVE NOT
HELD HIGH OFFICET ISLEESOUTH CAN
BE COVERED UNDER SUSBECT STATES
THAT WE IKOUY BUT WE DEFTLY HAVE A STRONGER
TEXTUAL CASE.
I WANT THE IMPORTANCE OF THE
CLAUSES.
DET OF.
F TEPRESIDENT NOR ARE MEMBERS OF
THER. JUSTICE GORSUCH: AND HOW DOES
ARTICLE ONE ITH
BOF JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: TO MAKESUT
TI L ION
YENOSE DO YOU WANT TO ADD TO THAT
ORXABABECAUSE CONGRESS MADE THESE
DECISIONS IN DE FE A CONVICTED
COULD BE OR SHALL BE
DISQUALIFIED THEN FROMISIMD -- WE
WOULD NOT CONCEDE.
JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: UNDERSTOOD.
JUSTICE BARRETT:A ELFI ABECAUSE YOU
ARE AN INSURRECTIONIST AND DISQUALIFIECASE
IS CORRECT.
THE COURT WOULD HAVE TO REJECT
THE RATIONALE OF GRIFFIN'E
UG NDN CHALLENGENGHE WOULD HAVE TO
AWAIT
EE TSA ATOVCHHEOF AY OF OFFICE IS THE
IMPEACHMENT PROCESS AND NOT THIS
ACTION?
A OW HOW THAT PLAYED OUT
IN COURTS AND IF ANYONE CH YER I
TDNPEO ME AS A RELEVANT
PRESIDENT SHOWING IMPEACHMENT IS
NOT THRAJURG A
RIGHT TO BE HEARD?
PROCEEDINGS QUITE CHARITABLY
WERE HIGHLY IRREGULAR.
M GOING BACK GSTTHTHT LLGOETLO ITH
W
' THAT THEIR CONCERN WAS NOT ABOUT THE PRESIDENCY.
WHY YOU ARE GETTING
THAT ARGUMENT UP. MR. MITCHELL:EXITS -- SOME EVIDENCE
TO THE
JUST THAT.
ONE OF THE DRAFTS
SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THE
PRESIDENCY AND THE VICE PRESIDENCY.
JUSTICE JACKSON: BUT IT WAS NOT
THE FIE AAC NSTITUTION BECAUSE THIS WAS A
COMPROMISE INHA WANTED US TO END
LITIGATION SO IS THERE A
POSSIBILITYMR. MITCHELL: I AYMIO QYOUR
REPLY SEEMS TO SUGGEST THEY
ARE NOT.
WHAT IS YOUR POSITION?
TY ACT THAT COULDRID NOT INVOLVE ANY
ORGANIZED ATTEMPT TO OVERTHROW UNITED
STATES THROUGH VIOLENCE.
JUSTICE JACKSON: A CHAOTICW WAS SHAMEFUL
BUT IT DID NOT
QUALIFY AS INSURRECTION AS THAT
TERM IS USED IN SECTION THON: THANK
YOU. >>Y: ATIESO TIUR THO FLDG EYER
O IRASOF, INSURRECTION AGAINST
THE CONSTITUTION.
I WELCOME THE COURT'S QUESTIONS.
CANDIDATES, NOT ITS OWN
CANDIDATES? MR. MURRAY:EREOIAHE I
HAVE NOW STATES
CREATED UNDERICDUHA O
A CANDIDATES BEING DISQUALIFIED IF
THERE WERE NATIONALTOEM?
I UNDERSTAND CONGRESS WOEXRI --
STATES WOULD NOT HAVE THE
AUTHORITY TO -ATORRTNG
ASKING YOU FOR, IF YOU
ANDIDATES FOR INDIVIDUALS HOLDING STATE OFFICES.
WE HAVE A NUMBER OF CASES OF
TA RET
FY IS, DO T
P REAV
THE 1890'S, EVERYONE HAD
RECEIVED AMNESTY. LOOKING AT JUSTICE'SNIUT
T
WITH THE WHOLE THRUST OF THE
14TH AMENDMENT AND VERYRI W AUTHORITY
NOT IN THE AMENDMENT WOULD IN
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: YOU HAVE
E DPOWER IMPLIES A NARROWER POWER
TOIC AND YOU ARE
SAYING THAT IS IMPLICIT THE
EXTENDEDOTOM S
NIDMANSTIT IS HARD TO SEE WHY STATES
WOULD NOT BE SIMILARLY BOUND.
STATES HAVE THE POWER TO
CHOOSEISRGE TH NOR TO EXPLAIN THE
OVERALL STRUCTURE OF THE 14TH R EB CTION THREE
SHOULD BE TREATED ANY DIFFERENT.
SECTION 3 --
JUHR A I
TSETHESE QUESTIONS JUMP OUT WHENYO
S ION FIVE IS NOT AN EXCLUSIVE
PROVISION. IT IS CONGRESS MAY HAVE THE QUESTION
YOU HAVE TO
NSTAT OMY GOA IS ELECTED
OR CANDIDATE B IS ELECTED.
THAT SEEMS EXTRAORDINARYSEIT IS NOT
UNUSUAL THAT QUESTIONS OFSTAS
LEINO DETERMINATION NOT ONLY FOR THEIR
NONCITIZENMR FEINTI TVE WHAT EFFECT
THAT HAS ON THEIR OWN STATE'S
LIENJUSTICE BARRETT: IF WE SAID HE
WASWA ' ATH P MAKING,
WITH MR. MITCHELL, TOO, THAT
R. SOAN E STATEMENTS HE S DECISION WITHOUT
ANY DECTS O SO S.IN HIS OWN VIDEOTAPE
STATEMENTS
I WANTED TO CIRCLE BACK TO
WHERE JUSTICE KAGAN WAS.
BALLOT HAS TO COME FROM SOME
CONS. THE SAME
WHETHER THE COUR R H: IFNG AMENDMENT
IN SECTION THREE.
THAT IS WHERE YOU HAVE TO
DEFINED YOUR A IN ARTICLEOW THIS IS
A
FEDERAL OFFICE AND IT HAS TO
COMETO EN JUSTICE GORSUCH: COULD
THR THEY DISQUALIFY SOMEBODY
ON ANY BASIS THEY WANT OUTSIDE
OF THE QUALIFICATIONS CLAUSE?
MR. MURRAY: THAT WOULD RUN INTOTI
QUALIFICATIONS BSE ABOUT WHO CAN
RUN AND SERVE. MR. MURRAY: THERE
EXCEPT THEY CAN GET REMOVED UNDER SECTION THREE.
T SINCE JANUARY 6H:ON COHERENCE?
WHT GR IS IN FACT HOLDING
THE POSITION.
'SEOF DOES THAT FORM OUR THOUGHTS
ABOUT ESTATE'S EFFORTSA DOD, ESDOGE
IDFFICE IS HE CANNOT HOLD
IN VIOLATION OF STATE LAW AND
STATE PROONAL
ACTION TO COMMIT 1THERE MUST HAVE
BEEN A THOUGHT
THAT THERE WAS F NTEOOULD BE DISQUALIFIED THE MOMENT SECTION
THREE
S N D. PO SCOUDFUL
OF STATES WHO DECIDED THE
ELECTION.
THAT IS A DAUNTING CONSEQUENCE.
MR. MURRAY: THAT THERE ARE POTENTIAL FRIVOLOUS
APPLICATIONSS:BU THE BALLOTS -- COUNTING
THE BALLOTS FOR
INSURRECTION AGAINST THEROARHE H CWR
RIGHT
AND WE HAVE TOSU GANATION OF STATE
OR FEDERAL
LAW, BUT FUNCTIONS MANDATED BY
THAT IT HAS BEEN DORMANT 155
YEARS, THEASE,Y ICORHEL COULD CHANGE
IT BUT
THEY HAVE NOT IN 155 YEARS.
MR. MUNFEN ANYTHING LIKE
ANY INSURRECTION SINCE THEN.
I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS YOUR
POINT -- JUSTICE
ALITO.
JUSTICE ALITO: I DON'T KNOW HOWGO
T THI DON'T S UTONRU AMENDMENT AND
ESSENTIAL TO THE
TRANSFER OF POWER.
>> OSF AT PASSES A LAW
ORDERING TO VOTE FOR THE OTHER
CANDIDATE.
DO YOU P
I AM NOT SURE BECAUSE I'M NOT
AWARE OF THIS COURT ADDRESSING IT.
JUSTICE ALITO:E ELECTION
BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE POLLS
IN THAT STATE LOOK BAD. CAN TH I SAY WE'RE ONLY GOING TO
PUT
ON AN INDIVIDUAL QUALIFIED TO
AS F ANER ORDERS
OF THE PRESIDENT IN QUESTION?
THE LEGALITY OF THE PRESIDENCY.
JUSTICE ALITO:E I UNDERSTAND THAT
THE DIFFE IFANYBODY HAVECANG REMEDY
FOR NEGATING THE AUTHORITY OF A SITTING
PRESIDENT.
JUSTICE ALITO:ON HHO. H: I THOUGHT
THAT WITH THE O3 OF YOUR CASE.
NO PROCEDURE HAPPENS EED A PROCEDURE
TO HAVE A R W P P BE FREE TO ACT
AS HE OR
SHEIDTH WIPE?
-- ECRO ORDER FROM THE FORMER
PRESIDENT?
A WERE 25 AND INELIGIBLE --
JUSTICE GORSUCH: NO.
REPL TRON, NEOME QUESTION.
WHAT WOULD COMPEL A LOWER
INIC OHEY DO NOT HAVE THE
ABILITY TO HOLD THAT O>> CAN I ASKET
P
UNDERSTAND YOUR ARGUMENT OR YOUR
CONCERNED ABOUT UNIFORMITY, THEY
CAN PROVIDE LEGISLATION AND
PREEMPT STATE LEGISLATION.
>> T
ASSUMING AS HERE WE HAVE A FULL
EVIDENTIARY RECORD AND ANY
OPPORT E
FE ELIGIBLE AND YOU ARE NOT ON THE
BASIS OF THIS KIND OF THRR IC UNIOAY
I WILL ASK YOU
OM SUPPOSE THERE IS
A COUNTRYSEUL COMFORT
T RSR FURTHER THE
PURPOSE OF THE INSURRECTION OR
OFERCAFFSI, PERHAPS DIFFERENT
STANDARDS OF PROOF.
WHAT WOULD WE DO RECORD, THE
COURT COULD REFUSE TO HEAR THE
CASE OR DECIDE SH
FINDINGS?
WOULD WE HAVE TO HAVE OUR OWN
TRIAL? E ULTIMATELY WHATO:LP OE JUDGES
IN MULTIPLE STATES, WHAT DO WE DO?
TLRD T DS TWEE W VIDEO AND IN HIS TWITTER
YOU OUO DO YOU THINKD
VIDEOTAPED STATEMENTS OF TRUMP
HIMSELF ENCOURAGING AND PRAISING
POLITICAL VIOLESI
PL
ABOUT HOW THIS WOULD
NOT S L OURT CAN ADDRESS THAT
WINDOWS ISSUES COME UP. IT SEEMS UNLIKELY.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: JUSTICE
SOTOMAYOR?
TRG UI
EK. SF ER
ES SECS ADTY ON
THOSE I
THE POLLS.
JUSTICE KAGAN:SE AG VAO LSECUT D
MINOR POLITICAL
PARTY CANDIDATES, WHY DOES IT
NOT GOLSUO ARSKLERE ENFORCELST OWSTDECIDING
WHO OTHER CITIZENS : TO
VOTE FOR PRESIDENT, IS DECIDING
ITS OWN ELECTORS UNDER ARTICLE
TWO. JUSTICE KAGAN: N RROTLELECTORS AND
AVOID DISENFRANCHISEMEICE KAGAN: THANK YOU.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: JUSTICE
GORSUCH.
TNTLLO O TPO OFTH ALTHOSMAYBE THAT
IS HOW IT WORKS.
0' WE KNOW THERE ARE
CLASSES OF OFFICERS LIKE THE
PRESIDENT PRO TEM WE DON'T GET
COMMISSIONS FROM THE PRESIDENT.
TU A IT IS IMPORTANT TO
O DISTINCTION
PARTICULARLY WITH RESPECT TO THE SPEA
SEST THEY ARE A SENATOR OR REVISIT IF IN
CONGRESS.
JUSTICE GORSUCH: THERE ARE
OFFICERS WHO DO NOT HOLD ANY ANY OFFICE
BUT DON'T SWEA ANY OFFICE UNDER THE
INCOMPATIBILITY BECAUSE -
SOME MAY CONSIDER THEM
OFFICERS OF TH CONSTITUTION SAYS THEY ARE
OFFICERS OF THE UNITED STATES.
THERE ARE SOME INSTITUTIONS YOU HAVE
ANY OFFICER BUT NOT ANY OFFICE.
MR. MURRAY: THOSE MAY BE
EXISTENT IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES.
KAON S EMOO DO S LANGUAGE.
NOT ABOUT THE.T
RTRU IOTHIS IS HOW BALLOT ACCESS
DETERMINATIONS IN YOOSO HOINRE
BOOKS BUT PRESIDENT TRUMP IS
NOT CHARGED WITH THAT.
WHAT ARE WE TO MAKE OF THAT?
RATIFIED, MOST CONFEDERA D
NN LLST AGAINST SOMEONE WHO
CONSIDERED JOSHUA COMMITTED
INSURRECTION. TIHE CASE IN THE CIVIL
WAR.
EVEN IF WE DON'T HAVE THE
STOMACH --
OTG EX SREWHAT ABOUT THE BACKGROUND
CTIN
BAUEY, TIPPED HIM
REQUIRE HE BE GIVEN ANOTHER
CHANCE. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: JUSTICE
BARRETT.
JUSTICE BARRETT:ARE
QART AGST CEME MRCL T GREH WIOFFICE,
OVERCOME BY THE ELECTRIC
ECE UNTIL THEN, THE STATES HAVE THE
POWER TO ADJUDICATE THOSE
ISSUES. JUSTICE BARRETT: THANK YOU.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: JUSTICE
JACKSON.
IT IE FOWEE TAIT
ASM ELECTIONS AS OPPOSED TO
FOCUSING ON THE PRESIDENCY?
MR. MURRAY:E
ANDIDATES WOULD
NOT HAVE EXISTED.
THEY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN RAISED
ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. JUSTICE JACKSON:INCS WHO
MIGHT RISE THROUGH THE RANKS UP
TOOE WFOT A
AND THEREFORE THAT PERSON IS NO
LONGER GOING TOERUA MOORE RESPONSE,
WE HAVE.
ANY OFFICE UNDER THE UNITED JU SOM TO
-- IT IS
CLEAR THAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS
ABOUT 20 TIMES. PAT
WHAT LOOKED LIKE AMBIGUITY, YOU
ARE SAYITHEY DO NOT HOLD AN OFFICE.
THEY VOTE.
F
E ATEAONOTHER HIGH OFFICES, THE
PRESIDENT, VICE THR ISIS IT DONE?
C ISK TWHEDFF HIMSELF LOOKS TO
RESOLVE.
ED>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> THANK YOU COUNSEL.
T VE
M CLI S API WELCOME YOUR QUESTIONS.
T THE -- THAT DEFINES
EXPRESS
PROVISION. THEY LOOK AT THE NEED TO BE
QUALIFIED.
>> HOW DOAVE A STANDING
OBJECTION, YOU SHOULD NOT REVIEW
WSRYQUALIFIED AND WOULD NOT>> CENO
>>D I THINK THIS CANDIDATE
SHOULD BE DISQUALIFIED, WHAT DO OBJECTIVE
ACT ON THAT.
>> THEECE CHALLENGE SUBMITTED, THE
SECRETARY DID NOT EVEN MAKE THE
DETERMINATION.
E A HPRT IT, THE SECRETARY COULD
BRING >> IN
TA>> I THINK WE ARE TOLD THAT
THERE ARE STATES THAT DO NOT
PROVIDE FORIS THAT M A OT AT ALL.
I WANT TO SPEAK B CONSTITUTIONAL,
IF
COTHEY HAD A BROAD AUTHORITY.
S PROCEEDING >> IT IS
UNDER THE SAME POWER.
>>OVCONSTITUTIONAL CONSTRAINTS.
ROWHAT IS THE LIBERTY INTEREST?
SOME DUE PROCESS INTEREST IN BEING
UG WAS FOR
VOTERS.
A IT IS A QUALIFICATIONSS.ITWOULD
OURRE D A>> RECORD AND CONCLUSIONS?
COURT'SPARATE RESULTS ON THE SAME RECORD,
RIGHT?
>> I T POSSIBLE.
>>ANHASAOWAFILLBOJU DIFFERENCE?
ER NSI WOULD DEFER
A THAT DOES
RECOGNIZE AND MAKES THE
T EC WPRESIDENT ACROSS THE COUNTR
CIT PA F LECAN INKS IT WILL RUN AMOK.
OL
ANOTHER CANDIDATE FROM THE
BALLOT.
SYESY
COURT SHOULD TAKE THOSE THREADS TOO
SERIOUSLY IN ITS RESOLUTION IN C SOTOMAYOR?
E K LYRE O
STAN INSTRUC
ELECTORS ONLY TO VOTE FOR WHITE
CANDIDATES.
AT EEWAEELNVHEECS
SA OTHRE TRACEE.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS THAT THE COURT MIGHT
HAVE.
NOADJOURNED UNTIL THE 16TH OF
>> A LOOK OUTSIDE THE SUPREME
COURT AS THE JUSTICES JUST
WRAPPED UP OVER 2.5 HOURS OF
ORAL ARGUMENT ON FORMER
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S APPEAL TO
REVERSE A COLORADO SPRINGS
RULING THAT HE IS NOT ELIGIBLE
TO BE ON THE PRIMARY BALLOT.
THEY FOUND SHE VIOLATED THE 14TH
AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION
AND SUPPORTED IN INSURRECTION IN
THE JANUARY 6 CAPITAL ATTACK.
IT WILL BE HELD IN LESS THAN A MONTH.
WE WILL WATCH THE SCENE OUTSIDE
THE COURT AND WE ARE -- WE WILL
SEE THEM MAKING REMARKS.
>> C-SPAN IS LIVE OUTSIDE THE
SUPREME COURT AFTER HEARING ORAL
ARGUMENT TO A SUPREME COURT
RULING THAT REMOVED HIM FROM THE
PRIMARY BALLOT.
WE COULD BE HEARING FROM SOME OF
THE LAWYERS THAT ARGUED THE CASE
OUTSIDE THE COURT, BUT BEFORE
THAT, WE WILL TAKE A LOOK AT
REPUBLICAN SENATORS WHO SPOKE TO
THE PRESS BEFORE THE ARGUMENTS
OUTSIDE THE SUPREME COURT.
>> GOOD MORNING.
WELCOME TO THE SUPREME COURT BUILDING, A PLACE TODAY WHERE
PEOPLE INSIDE WILL MAKE A
DECISION FOR THE FUTURE OF OUR COUNTRY.
WE ACTUALLY ARE FOR DEMOCRACY
AND WE ASK YOU TO STAND FOR THE
RIGHT TO VOTE